JUDGMENT - PATEL H.D., J.:---The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21st June, 1990 delivered by the Third Additional District Judges, Shri R.K. Khandarkar, Amravati in Land Acquisition Case No. 19 of 1987. 2. The Field Survey No. 9 admeasuring 4 hectares and 20 acres of Mouza Mhasla, Pragane Nandgaon Peth, Taluka and District Amravati belonging to the respondents was acquired along with other land by the State Government for the purpose of establishing the Amravati University Campus. The section 4 notification under Land Acquisition Act was published on 5-12-1983. This was followed by section 6 notification which came to be published on 28-2-1984. The possession of the land was obtained on 16-8-1984 be invoking emergency clause. By an Award made on 27-3-1986, the Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre or Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare. Not satisfied with the quantum awarded, the respondents moved the Collector for making a reference to the Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the respondents the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was wholly inadequate and meagre and hence, the compensation must be enhanced. The respondents also claimed that they should be paid for the entire land acquired, that is, for 4 hectares and 20 acres. The Land Acquisition Officer has fixed compensation only for land admeasuring 4 hectares and 9 acres. 3. While claiming enhanced compensation, the respondents specifically stated that the land Survey No. 9 of Mouza Mhasla is situated within the limits of Amravati Municipal Corporation. The surrounding area is also very well developed. There are various establishments nearby like the State Transport Workshop, Post and Telegraph Department, Soil Conservancy Office etc. Even Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth is situated in that locality. All these developments of educational, commercial and Government establishments are within the radius of one to half a kilometre of the acquired land. It was also alleged that a number of agricultural lands are converted to non-agricultural use and such lands have been purchased by Housing Societies. Because of these developments nearby, the potentiality of the land has substantially increased. These aspects are conveniently ignored by the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. A special feature was also brought out by the respondents in the reference proceedings that the land Survey No. 9 of Mouza Mhasla is a triangular piece of land having road on two sides. Because of these developments nearby, the potentiality of the land has substantially increased. These aspects are conveniently ignored by the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. A special feature was also brought out by the respondents in the reference proceedings that the land Survey No. 9 of Mouza Mhasla is a triangular piece of land having road on two sides. This advantage of the land having double frontage was bound to fetch much better price than the instances of various sales which have been brought on record. In this respect, the respondents have referred to the following sale instances :-- (i) The land admeasuring 81 Ares (2 acres) out of Survey No. 2 of Mouza Mhasla which is just adjoining or contiguous to land Survey No. 9 of the respondents was sold on 29-8-1983 for Rs. 80,000/-. This land is stated to have been sold as agricultural land. The rate as worked out was Rs. 40,000/- per acre or Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare. This sale instance is also available in the schedule annexed to Award made by the Land Acquisition Officer at Survey No. 15. (ii) 20 Gunthas of land (0.20 Ares) out of Survey No. 102/2 of Mouza Wadali was purchased by Ramkrishna Gruh Nirman Sansthan for consideration of Rs. 35,600/- on 29-6-1983. It may be relevant to observe that Mouza Wadali is adjacent to Mouza Mhasla and lands from either of the villages have been acquired for establishment of the University Campus. The rate of land works out to Rs. 71,200/- per Acre or Rs. 1,78,000/- per hectare. This sale instance is at S. No. 41 of the schedule annexed to the Award. (iii) Similarly about 1 hectare and 21 ares from Survey No. 2 of Mouza Wadali was purchased on 25-8-1981 for Rs. 1,26,212=50 by Waman Griha Nirman Sanstha. The rate works out to Rs. 42,000/- per acre or Rs. 1,05,000/- per hectare. (iv) Land from Survey No. 87/2 of Mouza Wadali admeasuring 40' X 30' (1200 sq.ft.) was purchased for Rs. 14,000/- by one Wamanrao from Pradeep on 23-3-1982. The rate of the plot works out to Rs. 11=66 per square foot and not Rs. 8/- per square foot as shown in the reference. 42,000/- per acre or Rs. 1,05,000/- per hectare. (iv) Land from Survey No. 87/2 of Mouza Wadali admeasuring 40' X 30' (1200 sq.ft.) was purchased for Rs. 14,000/- by one Wamanrao from Pradeep on 23-3-1982. The rate of the plot works out to Rs. 11=66 per square foot and not Rs. 8/- per square foot as shown in the reference. (v) One more sale instance as referred to in the pleadings is of land admeasuring 600 square feet from Survey No. 87, Mouza Wadali, which was sold by Nilawanti Wankhede to Shamrao Bhonduji Watane for Rs. 10,000/- on 19-10-1983. The rate of this transaction works out to Rs. 16-66 per sq.ft. and not Rs. 15/- per sq.ft. as written in the reference. 5. The respondent, therefore, claimed compensation at Rs. 7/- per square foot for land admeasuring 3,01,650 sq. ft. which could be used for residence and Rs. 10/- per square foot for land admeasuring 11,555 sq. feet which could be used for commercial purposes. These calculations were based on lay-out plan prepared for the purpose. 6. The appellants opposed the claim of the respondents. While not disputing the description and situation of the land acquired, either of the appellants denied that the land was undervalued. The claim preferred by the respondents was stated to be an exaggerated one. According to them, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was quite adequate taking into consideration the potentiality of the acquired land. 7. The Court below who tried the reference awarded compensation on the basis of sale instances of small plots of land in Survey No. 87/2 and Survey No. 87 of Mouza Wadali sold on the basis of square feet basis. It fixed the market value at the flat rate of Rs. 7/- per square foot. The lower Court thus computed the market value of the land to be Rs. 21,92,435/- on the date the land was notified for acquisition. The appellants feeling aggrieved by the enhancement have filed this appeal. 8. The respondents also felt that the Court below has committed grave errors in calculation of interest and solatium amount which needed correction, and this could well be done while deciding an appeal. Hence, they also preferred a cross-objection to be decided along with the appeal. 9. The method of valuation cannot be exact as it is the estimate based more or less on the guess work. Hence, they also preferred a cross-objection to be decided along with the appeal. 9. The method of valuation cannot be exact as it is the estimate based more or less on the guess work. The land has to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of declaration under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act but its potential value also has to be taken into account. The market value to be estimated must be value of the land in the open market which a willing seller is expected to realise. It is generally ascertained on a consideration of the price obtained by sale of adjacent lands with similar advantages. It is one of the methods of valuation. The market value may be ascertained on the basis of (a) the opinion of the experts, (b) the price paid within reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of lands or lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages, and (c) a number of years of purchase or actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired. Whatever the method, the Court is required to arrive at as near as possible at estimate of real market value. The market value of the land is to be estimated not merely by existing use of the land but by the best use to which a willing purchaser would put to. In other words, the situation of the land, its utilisation, its potential or latent value are the relevant factors or true criterion for determining the market value of the land. 10. It is not in dispute that the lands acquired were within the limits of the Amravati Municipal Corporation. A notification to that effect was issued on 15-9-1983, that is, about three months prior to the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. There can be no doubt that Amravati Town has been developing and also expanding since before the land was sought to be acquired. The potentialities for the development of the acquired land are further evidenced from the Draft Development Plan (Exh. 52) published under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act showing reservations of land for various purposes including residential area in Mouza Mhasla. The Index Plan (Exh. 53) shows the location of various establishments near about the land under acquisition. The potentialities for the development of the acquired land are further evidenced from the Draft Development Plan (Exh. 52) published under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act showing reservations of land for various purposes including residential area in Mouza Mhasla. The Index Plan (Exh. 53) shows the location of various establishments near about the land under acquisition. It may be necessary to clarify that lands from Mouza Mhasla as well as from Mouza Wadali were acquired for the purpose of establishing the Amravati University Campus. It will be hence futile to distinguish the land of Mouza Mhasla from the land in Mouza Wadali as being superior or inferior in quality. No doubt the development is more near Mouza Mhasla but that by itself is no consideration to fix different rates of valuation. The fact remains that the entire area under acquisition comes within the limit of Amravati Municipal Corporation and, therefore, it has the potentiality of development for purposes other than agricultural uses more so because the area has assumed an urban character and ceasing to be rural or agricultural in nature. The land in question will have to be evaluated accordingly with whatever additional advantages it may possess. 11. The compensation was fixed by the trial Court on the basis of market value as stated to be prevalent on the date of notification under section 4. The underlying principle of fixing the market value with reference to comparable sales is to reduce the element of speculation. The main features in comparable sales are (a) it must be within a reasonable time of notification under section 4; (b) it should be a bona fide transaction; (c) it must be a sale of land or of the land adjacent to the land acquired, and (d) it must possess similar advantages. Before such instances of sales can be considered, there must be material evidence either by the production of sale-deeds or by examining the parties to the deeds or persons having knowledge of the sales to prove that the transactions are genuine. It is in this background, the sale instances have to be scrutinised. 12. Great emphasis appears to have been given by the trial Court on two sale instances while fixing the market price of the lands in question. Those two instances are as follows :--- (i) Land from Survey No. 87/2 of Mouza Wadali admeasuring 1200 sq.ft. It is in this background, the sale instances have to be scrutinised. 12. Great emphasis appears to have been given by the trial Court on two sale instances while fixing the market price of the lands in question. Those two instances are as follows :--- (i) Land from Survey No. 87/2 of Mouza Wadali admeasuring 1200 sq.ft. was sold by Pradeep to one Wamanrao on 25-3-1082 for Rs. 14,000/-, (ii) Land from Survey No. 87, Mouza Wadali admeasuring 600 sq.ft. was sold by Nilawanti to Shamrao on 19-10-1983 for Rs. 10,000/-. The evidence as available on the record is the true certified copies of the Index Register which are marked as Exhs. 73 and 74, being extracts of public documents. No other evidence to prove the transactions mentioned above is filed. Neither the sale-deeds have been produced by the respondents nor the parties to the sale-deeds have been examined. In the absence of such material, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that no reliance could be placed on such instances more so because the two instances are not comparable ones considering the size or smallness of the plots. There is much force in the submissions canvassed. 13. Except filing of the true extracts of Index Register which are marked Exhs. 73 and 74, there is no evidence on record to prove that the sales in question are comparable ones with the land under acquisition or that these sale instances are genuine and bona fide. The entries in the register (Exh. 73) only show that a part of plot No. 21 in Survey No. 87/2 is sold. The whole plot admeasures 60' x 40' whereas the sale is of half portion admeasuring 60' x 20'. Similarly, the entry in register (Exh. 74) shows that part of plot No. 37 in Survey No. 87 is sold. Other details available are the names of parties to the transaction, sale price, land revenue and the date of sale. The situation of these plots or even the situation of Survey Numbers is not available on record, though we find several maps filed on record. Though plot numbers are given in the extracts of Index Register, it is not possible to find out whether these plots are situated in a layout prepared for the purpose. One cannot even find out the advantages which these sale instances enjoy. Though plot numbers are given in the extracts of Index Register, it is not possible to find out whether these plots are situated in a layout prepared for the purpose. One cannot even find out the advantages which these sale instances enjoy. Apart from the lack of evidence, the size of the plots in question is so small that it cannot form the basis or a safe guide in valuing large extent of land with potentialities for urban use. In this connection, reliance can well be placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of (Administrator General of West Bengal v. The Collector, Varanasi)1, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 943. The following passage would be useful : "6. It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See (Collector of Lakhimpur v. B.C. Dutta)2, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2015; (Mirza Naushserwan Khan v. Collector, (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad)3, 1975(2) S.C.R. 184 (Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab)4, 1977(1) S.C.R. 329 ; (Smt. Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad)5, 1984(2) S.C.R. 900 . The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of a hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civic amenities, expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made. In (Brig. are to be made. In (Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust)6, 1982(1) S.C.C. 419 , this Court indicated that deductions for land required for roads and other development expenses can, together, come up to as much as 53%. But the prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applies in the case of large areas, for the reason that the former reflects the 'retail' price of land and the latter the 'wholesale' price." The above passage clarifies that sale instances of small plots cannot be relied upon for fixing the price of large extent of land having potentialities for urban use. No doubt, some exceptions are also carved out in which case the smallness of the plot would not be material. Those exceptions would be that the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for building purposes, that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be a good selling proposition and the valuation on the hypothetical lay-out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such laid out sites, the valuation indicated by sale of comparable sites and in the area at or about the time of notification would be relevant. No efforts whatsoever are made by the respondents to prove or establish that the two sale instances are comparable ones. 14. At this juncture, it would be proper also to deal with the aspect of identifying the most comparable sale instances out of the genuine instances. As laid down in the case of (Chunilal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi)7, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1652, it is held that proximity of time angle and proximity of situation angle are the material consideration for identifying the comparable sale instances out of genuine instances. It means that only the sale instances which are near in point of time to the date when the price is to be fixed have to be taken but even the situation of land which is in proximity of the land to be acquired has to be adopted. Necessarily, preference has to be given to the sale instances of adjacent land in comparison to sale instances of land situated far away. The respondents have not shown the situation of Survey No. 87/2 or Survey No. 87 but certainly it is nowhere near the acquired land. Necessarily, preference has to be given to the sale instances of adjacent land in comparison to sale instances of land situated far away. The respondents have not shown the situation of Survey No. 87/2 or Survey No. 87 but certainly it is nowhere near the acquired land. We will shortly point out that, there are also instances on record which are proximate from the point of view of situation angle and one of them being even adjoining or abutting Survey No. 9 which is under acquisition. Applying the considerations laid down in Chunilal's case (cited supra), preference will have to be given to sale instances which are proximate to the lands under acquisition. For this reason also, we are unable to rely upon the sale instances of Survey No. 87/2 (Exh. 73) and Survey No. 87 (Exh. 74). 15. It would be pertinent to mention here that the evidence is lacking even in respect of other sale instances inasmuch as the sale-deeds are not to be found on record nor any oral evidence is adduced by either of the parties. Factually, it can well be said that this is a case of no evidence at all. Ordinarily, the claim for enhancement of the valuation could have been disallowed but for the fact that other sale instances are not disputed by the appellants and reliance is placed upon them as being comparable sales to urge that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was quite proper and requires no further enhancement. A peculiar feature of the case is that the Land Acquisition Officer Shri Marathe was examined as a witness and he has proved his Award (Exh. 5) which contains a list of sale instances on which he had relied upon while fixing the value of the acquired land. That list is annexed to the award and both parties have placed reliance thereon. It is in this background that the other sale instances are being scrutinised in order to find out the nearabout value of the acquired land. Those sale instances are stated below : (i) The land admeasuring 0.81 ares (2 acres) out of Survey No. 2 of Mouza Mhasla was sold for Rs. 80,000/- on 29-8-1983. The rate works out to Rs. 40,000/- per acre or Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare. Now this land is just adjoining the land Survey No. 9 which is under acquisition. Those sale instances are stated below : (i) The land admeasuring 0.81 ares (2 acres) out of Survey No. 2 of Mouza Mhasla was sold for Rs. 80,000/- on 29-8-1983. The rate works out to Rs. 40,000/- per acre or Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare. Now this land is just adjoining the land Survey No. 9 which is under acquisition. The date of sale is hardly three months and six days before the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The sale instance is not only proximate in time angle but is also proximate in situation angle. Survey No. 2 and Survey No. 9 are separated only by a Dhura as can be seen in various maps filed on record. (ii) 20 gunthas (0.20 Ares) out of Survey No. 102/2 of Mouza Wadali was purchased by Ramkrishna Griha Nirman Society for a consideration of Rs. 35,600/- on 29-6-1983. The schedule also shows that a month later 1 Acre (0.40 Ares) was also purchased by the very same society for Rs. 71,200/-. The rate works out to Rs. 71,200/- per acre or Rs. 1,78,000/- per hectare. The situation of this land is near the various establishments which are across the road and about a kilometre away from Survey No. 9. The land is also abutting the road on one side. Though the situation of this land is little away from the land acquired or the sale instance in Survey No. 2, reliance can be placed to show the trend of prices as prevalent in the area on the date of acquisition of the land. (iii) The land admeasuring 1 hectare 21 ares from Survey No. 2, Mouza Wadali was purchased by Waman Griha Nirman Sanstha on 25-8-1981 for Rs. 1,26,212.50. The rate works out to Rs. 42,000/- per acre or Rs. 1,05,000/- per hectare. This land is adjacent to Survey No. 102/2 as revealed from the map but it does not have the advantages of the road which Survey No. 102/2 enjoys. This instance being more than two years before the notification under section 4 was published, the requirement of time angle is not satisfied. The prices are bound to increase within two years. 16. This instance being more than two years before the notification under section 4 was published, the requirement of time angle is not satisfied. The prices are bound to increase within two years. 16. From the above discussions, it is clear that the prices of land at Mouza Wadali are little on the higher side in comparison to the prices of land at Mhasla but as found earlier uniform rate will have to be fixed as lands from either of the villages have been acquired for identical use. Reliance can be placed on sale instance of Survey No. 2, Mouza Mhasla as well as on Survey No. 102/2, of Mouza Wadali both of them being instances within proximity of time angle and also situation angle. The average rate would work out to Rs. 55,800/- per acre or Rs. 1,39,500/- per hectare. This should be the normal rate of prices prevalent at the time the notification under section 4 was issued. But such a rate would be without any advantage which Survey No. 9 has. It has the frontage of two roads and, therefore, it is bound to fetch price higher than the average rate. It would, therefore, be proper to fix the price of land Survey No. 9 at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre or Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare. 17. One more aspect which now remains to be dealt with is the reliance placed by the respondents on an agreement of sale (Exh. 31) dated 14-9-1985 by which Shri M.S. Ganorkar, a minor aged 13 years through his Guardian Father Shri Shriram Govindrao Ganorkar agreed to sell the minor's property situated at Mouza Mhasla to Wani Enterprises at the rate of Rs. 1,65,000/- per acre. The field property agreed to be sold was Survey No. 16/5, area 4 Acres and 70 Gunthas. The emphasis was on the rate as prevalent in the year 1985. It may be relevant to note that though the agreement was executed two years after the date of notification, the rate was not agreed upon on square feet basis. Any way it is a post notification sale and hence would be of little help in fixing the valuation of the acquired property. Moreover, the executant of the agreement Shri Shriram Govindrao Ganorkar is respondent No. 4 in this appeal. It would be hence difficult for us to accept the rate quoted in the agreement. Any way it is a post notification sale and hence would be of little help in fixing the valuation of the acquired property. Moreover, the executant of the agreement Shri Shriram Govindrao Ganorkar is respondent No. 4 in this appeal. It would be hence difficult for us to accept the rate quoted in the agreement. In any event, the possibility of the rate having increased by Rs. 15,000/- due to the time lapse from 5-12-1983 (the date of notification) to the date of agreement, namely, 14-9-1985 cannot be overruled. 18. The lower Court was not right when he fixed the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 7/- per square foot ignoring the principles as laid down by various cases of the Supreme Court which are discussed above. There was absolutely no justification for the lower Court to grant compensation at the exorbitant rate of Rs. 7/- per square foot. We have no option left but to set aside the finding and consequently, the judgment. 19. In addition to the amount of compensation as determined, a further sum will have to be added, being additional component of 12 per cent per annum for a period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4 to the date of the Award of the Collector or the date of taking possession whichever is earlier. In the present case the date of Award is 27-3-1986 whereas possession was obtained on 16-8-1984. The period for which 12 per cent per annum is payable would be from 5-12-1983 to 18-8-1984 on value of the land as determined. The respondents would also be entitled to claim solatium at the amended rate of 30 per cent on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Interest under section 28 will also have to be paid to the respondents on the excess amount thus found due at the rate of nine per cent per annum for one year and thereafter at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum till the amount is paid by the appellants. 20. The Court below also fell into an error in awarding interest only on the amount of compensation found due. 20. The Court below also fell into an error in awarding interest only on the amount of compensation found due. The interest amount is to be calculated on total sum found due by adding the component of 12 per cent per annum as well as solatium of 30 per cent to the compensation amount. To that extent, the cross-objection will also have to be allowed. 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The cross-objection is also partly allowed. The appellants shall pay to the respondents compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare. In addition, the appellants shall also pay the amounts on account of : (a) Component of 12 per cent per annum from 5-12-1983 to 18-8-1984 on value of land that may be determined, (b) Solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the value of the land. (c) Interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The amount of compensation so far received by the respondents shall be deducted out of the sum found due and the balance be paid to them within two months from the amount kept in fixed deposit under the orders of the Court. The respondents will also be entitled to claim interest so far accrued on the fixed deposit but that amount of interest will be limited to the balance amount found due and payable to them. The costs of this appeal shall be borne by the parties as incurred. Appeal allowed. -----